Climate Change, the Science.

I'd like to know what time period you're referring to with the disconnect between radiative forcing and global temperatures

Just go back to the last page:

The observed temperature is below the CCSM4 model (which includes that documented RF) range over 50% of the time dating back to 1950 or so and the divergence is growing.

Quote:

what recommendations from the IAC you think the IPCC has rejected enough to cast doubt on their scientific integrity

The testable ones to date are about fresh blood for each AR cycle, yet Pachauri will continue to sit as Chair until 2014, and increased transparency in the face of FOIA exemption requests by the IPCC doesn't give anything but lip service to the IAC report. While a divergence from blowing smoke would be welcome I hold little hope for changes in dealing with identified conflicts of interest, scientific uncertainties, correction of errors and ‘Grey’ literature.

^^^^ Well, it was two pages ago. But you conveniently ignored nummycakes question. Oh, you know, actual statistical significance and actual mention in the scientific literature rather than the illiterate blogspew you channel.

(well, two pages back now) That confused me because your link for radiative forcing only went to the ESRL page and didn't reference Gent et al. 2011 et al. at all. Please connect your thoughts more clearly. Also, you keep referencing things that happened pages (sometimes tens of pages) back in the thread without providing a link. Please do something about that so everyone can be on the same page.

Quote:

The observed temperature is below the CCSM4 model (which includes that documented RF) range over 50% of the time dating back to 1950 or so and the divergence is growing.

From the abstract of the paper you cited:

Quote:

The CCSM4 ensemble mean increase in globally averaged surface temperature between 1850 and 2005 is larger than the observed increase by about 0.4°C. This is consistent with the fact that CCSM4 does not include a representation of the indirect effects of aerosols, although other factors may come into play.

And from the body:

Quote:

There are several possibilities for the differences between the models and reality. Neither model includes the indirect effects of aerosols, which have cooled the earth somewhat over the twentieth century. This implies that both models should warm faster than the observations, and the fact that CCSM3 did not do so suggests that probably the cooling effect of volcanoes is too strong in that model. Volcanoes are implemented in exactly the same way in both models, and Fig. 12 clearly shows the quite large temperature response to large eruptions that is not reflected in the observations. This could possibly be a problem with the temperature reconstruction, which has only sparse data in the early part of the record, and a temperature drop might show up better using data just over land. However, there are other possibilities for model errors, such as a poor representation of the direct effect of aerosols or the climate sensitivity is incorrect. In addition, the heat uptake by the ocean may be too small, although Gent et al. (2006) show that the CCSM3 heat uptake is larger than observations suggest, and uptake of chlorofluorocarbon-11 agrees well with observations. It is very difficult to say definitively which of these possibilities causes the CCSM4 too large surface temperature increase over the twentieth century....The third conclusion is that the missing indirect effects of aerosols in CCSM4 is very likely a major factor causing the larger increase in globally averaged surface temperature over the twentieth century than in observations, shown in Fig. 12. However, there are other possibilities for this too large increase, such as a poor representation of the direct effect of aerosols, the ocean heat uptake is too small, or the model climate sensitivity is too large. The absence of aerosol indirect effects means that projections of future temperature rise due to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be larger than if CCSM4 did include the aerosol indirect effects. These last two conclusions clearly point out the necessity of an improved atmosphere component that includes a better representation of cloud physics and aerosols that allows for feedback of the indirect effects of aerosols. A new version of CAM that includes these processes, and other improved parameterizations, has been under development for some time and is ready to be incorporated into CCSM. Results using this new atmosphere component will be documented in the very near future.

So it seems they've already tentatively identified the main source(s) of the divergence between CCSM4 temperature evolution and observations, and much of it is likely the aerosols with perhaps a slightly high climate sensitivity (3.2 compared to 2.7 in the previous version, the differences discussed in a paper cited) playing a role.

Quote:

Quote:

what recommendations from the IAC you think the IPCC has rejected enough to cast doubt on their scientific integrity.

The testable ones to date are about fresh blood for each AR cycle, yet Pachauri will continue to sit as Chair until 2014...

They remain undecided on how to handle that one.

Quote:

... and increased transparency in the face of FOIA exemption requests by the IPCC doesn't give anything but lip service to the IAC report.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying regarding FOI requests; the IPCC probably isn't subject to them because it's an international body and FOI regulations apply at the national level, and the only mention of FOI requests I can find in the IAC report regards issues found in the Muir Russell review of the CRU controversy, not the IPCC itself.

Quote:

While a divergence from blowing smoke would be welcome I hold little hope for changes in dealing with identified conflicts of interest, scientific uncertainties, correction of errors and ‘Grey’ literature.

But they've already implemented much of those suggested changes, so it seems to me that the only issue remaining from your gripes is about the term of the IPCC chair. And the fact that they've addressed so many criticism by adopting the recommendations already should really make you think twice about dismissing their seriousness on reforms. I wonder if anybody else shares your dour assessment of them.

But they've already implemented much of those suggested changes, so it seems to me that the only issue remaining from your gripes is about the term of the IPCC chair. And the fact that they've addressed so many criticism by adopting the recommendations already should really make you think twice about dismissing their seriousness on reforms. I wonder if anybody else shares your dour assessment of them.

The proof will be in the pudding, that being AR5. On the points that can be evaluated to date they have failed.

It seems to me that he's attempting to say that judgment has to be reserved until the next report, but at the same time wants to say that judgment can already be cast.

Mind you, this is after I addressed his complaints about the IPCC process and recommendations by the IAC wherein the IPCC adopted pretty much everything he singled out, except that he wants Pachauri out now instead of a few years down the road (a decision that the IPCC hasn't come to a firm agreement about). He's either contradicting himself about judgment being reserved, or contradicting the evidence that a failing grade is in order based on what's transpired already. If the proof is in the pudding (meaning wait until AR5), then we can't evaluate their seriousness in addressing criticisms yet. If we're going by what can already be measured in terms of recommendations adopted then his argument falls apart because they've already made almost all of those changes and not "failed." I don't see how he can have it both ways.

It seems to me that he's attempting to say that judgment has to be reserved until the next report, but at the same time wants to say that judgment can already be cast.

I read his claim to be that, from what is known so far about AR5 and its process, the points have not been addressed, but that the final judgment will be made after the process is complete and the new report is final. Does that seem like a correct reading?

It seems to me that he's attempting to say that judgment has to be reserved until the next report, but at the same time wants to say that judgment can already be cast.

I read his claim to be that, from what is known so far about AR5 and its process, the points have not been addressed, but that the final judgment will be made after the process is complete and the new report is final. Does that seem like a correct reading?

Hellburner clearly is also saying that AGW doesn't exist and that the scientists who say it does are lying and thieves, etc. Thus he has already cast his judgement.

Hellburner clearly is also saying that AGW doesn't exist and that the scientists who say it does are lying and thieves, etc. Thus he has already cast his judgement.

Skoop said, right before I went on vacation, that:

Quote:

Everyone should be stepping back from rhetoric like that. It's poisoned politics and makes science start resembling politics, much to our collective loss.

I was summarizing what I perceive to be Hellburner's position on AGW, as based on his statements regarding it over many years here in the Observatory. Yes, Hellburner's position resembles politics, and perhaps he should be stepping back from his more rhetorical statements about AGW. But I don't think ignoring it will be helpful.

The US Department of Agriculture released a new planting zone map that reflects the current realities of a warming globe. The boundaries of the planting zones have moved north. More empirical evidence showing that warming is occurring.

The US Department of Agriculture released a new planting zone map that reflects the current realities of a warming globe. The boundaries of the planting zones have moved north. More empirical evidence showing that warming is occurring.

It's the realities of a 30 year moving average as the unusually cold US winters of the 60's & 70's drop out of the data set. I was getting hit with frosts well past the frost free date last spring using the old data sets - it would have been even worse if it had been moved up a week or so based on the new data and mapping. This data is useful for orchards, forests, and vineyards - but bog standard agriculture and gardening is based on current local conditions.

Equilibrium sensitivities determined by two methods that account for the rate of planetary heat uptake range from 0.24 to 0.75 K (W m-2)-1 (CO2 doubling temperature 0.88 to 2.75 K), less than, to well less than, the IPCC central value and estimated uncertainty range, and strongly anticorrelated with the forcing used to determine the sensitivities. Transient sensitivities, relevant to climate change on the multidecadal time scale, are lower still, 0.19 – 0.42 K (W m-2)-1. The time constant characterizing the response of the upper ocean compartment of the climate system to perturbations is estimated as about 5 years, in broad agreement with other recent estimates, and much shorter than the time constant for thermal equilibration of the deep ocean, about 500 years.

Regardless of what's causing the change, the earth is getting warmer. Hellburner even tries to dispute that when the opportunity arises, but it is one of the key realities of climate change: it's happening.

That I am one of the few participants in this thread that ever references primary literature speaks volumes on the general level of scientific discourse on the topic.

Yet we always seem to require shread or others to point out how you're misinterpreting or misusing literature to serve your agenda.

Your willingness to spend an infinite number of posts on maintaining your narrative does not add up to a solid case for it. The primary impact reading your posts for me has been "this is what it takes to sustain denial at this point".

Then I'm pretty sure you're wrong. What seems to me to be happening is that sensitivity on the high end (which is a long tail of probability distribution) is being whittled away with more data to constrain it, but there is not mounting evidence pushing confidence to the low side (<2.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2).

Then I'm pretty sure you're wrong. What seems to me to be happening is that sensitivity on the high end (which is a long tail of probability distribution) is being whittled away with more data to constrain it, but there is not mounting evidence pushing confidence to the low side (<2.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2).

Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming under the Representative Concentration Pathways.

^^^^ Will knowledge that the entire fucking United States is getting warmer convince you that global warming is occurring?

shread, I have never denied that the globe is warming - you're the one that keeps trying to stuff that among other things into my mouth.

The warming is at a far slower pace than various climate models have been forecasting for the past 30 or so years.

Failure to understand the ramification of this fact in the context of the subject matter makes it difficult to have meaningful dialog.

In my experience, people who lie all the time become confused about what's real and what's not. This entire latest burst of posting started with:

Quote:

Quote:

UserJoe wrote:The US Department of Agriculture released a new planting zone map that reflects the current realities of a warming globe. The boundaries of the planting zones have moved north. More empirical evidence showing that warming is occurring.

Hellburner:It's the realities of a 30 year moving average as the unusually cold US winters of the 60's & 70's drop out of the data set. I was getting hit with frosts well past the frost free date last spring using the old data sets - it would have been even worse if it had been moved up a week or so based on the new data and mapping. This data is useful for orchards, forests, and vineyards - but bog standard agriculture and gardening is based on current local conditions.

You want realities in the science of climate change: Determination of Earth’s transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities from observations over the twentieth century:

First, you are implicitly denying that the new plant hardiness zone map indicates warming by saying it's the ultra-cold 60s and 70s dropping out of the data set that led to the apparent warming.

THUS YOU WERE DENYING THAT THE GLOBE IS WARMING

Second you were incorrect in your moving average statement. From the link provided by User Joe:

Quote:

The 1990 map was based on temperatures from 1974 to 1986, the new map from 1976 to 2005.

So it wasn't the 60s and 70s dropping out of a 30 year moving average.

Third the plant hardiness zones are based on the average coldest temperature over the year. Yes, they are pertinent to perennials but not annuals, but no, they don't indicate late spring frosts. Late spring frosts can be very important to annuals such as tomatoes however, should one plant too early.

Fourth, having denied that the globe is warming, you then changed the topic.

You switched to your old argument that the globe is not warming as much as one of the IPCC reports indicate. Usually when you've done that you've picked the highest run, based for instance upon aerosol projections that didn't pan out, rather than the median run. You've also in the past used older projections, such as from IR3, rather than IR4.

All of these faults are not unique to climate deniers. They can equally be made by AGW proponents. In this forum though, you've exemplified them

If you use the black and white version of the 1990 map, it's easier to compare to the 2012 map, as the colors have shifted on the color versions between years: in 1990, zone 5 is green and zone 4 is blue; in 2012 zone 6 is green and zone 5 blue. This messed with my mind so much that I couldn't make any comparisons yesterday until I switched to the black and white version of the 1990 map. I have the big Tyvek version of the 1990 map, and the black and white is on the back. I have no idea where the B&W is on the web, but will scan and post if desired. There also are smaller versions of the 2012 map that don't break the zones into half zones, and that simplifies things a bit for eyeballing.

It's easy to compare the 1960 map with the 1990 map and see there are few appreciable changes. For instance, the boundary between zones 4 and 5 runs through the middle of iowa and Nebraska. The Zone 5-6 boundary is further south in 1960 than 1990 in IN & IL, but shifts north into Mass in 1990; so the two maps are not identical. How much that relates to changes in technology (satellites and digital recording) compared to climate change (cooling) is unclear.

In contrast, between 1990 and 2012, many of the boundaries have shifted north half a zone, so that zone 4b would be replaced with zone 5a, for instance. In 2012 the boundary between zones 4 and 5 (4b and 5a), now runs along the northern border of Iowa and Nebraska. This is true throughout the Great Plains and east. The mountainous west is difficult to trace.

It's not too difficult to conclude it's getting warmer, as all the commentators have said, except the USDA officially.

I agree the reasons why it's getting warmer are more difficult to elucidate. You seem to agree in recent posts that the warming is probably due to greenhouse gases, as opposed to changes in insolation or other factors, but do not agree that an intolerable and dangerous amount of warming will occur. How much is too much is indeed a difficult question, but this degree of warming is starting to make me apprehensive.

Prior to the satellite era the data for most of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states were rather sparse.

Grabbing say TX, IN, and FL there was clear cooling between the 1960 and 1990 map, might this be the result of unusually cold winters in the 60's & 70's?

Then with the new maps these areas returned to the same levels indicated in the 1960 map.

Attribution of observed climate change is preposterously convoluted. The GHG's are entries on the ledger, but until the equations balance the work is not done.

Certain things like CO2 emissions from fossil carbon combustion are easily documented and characterized. Other things like aerosols associated with biogenic, physical, and the aforementioned combustion processes are areas of very active research. I think everybody can agree that improving various models to better match observations is worthwhile. Indications are pointing to aerosols at all levels from the stratosphere and albedo brightening to their impact on the troposphere's water column, clouds, and the water vapor feedback terms as playing large roles in reconciling models and observations.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

Premise: Human Caused Climate change is nonsense and, and the globe isn't warming. Conclusion: Hey, maybe we should cut down on the pollution, you know for shits and giggles and to make the planet nicer.

Premise: Human Caused Climate change is real! Conclusion: Hey, maybe we should cut down on the pollution, you know for shits and giggles and to make the planet nicer, and hospitable for life.

Is anyone really taking seriously the "Its not real, lets pollute the hell out of it in the name of Capitalism and consumption, assuming pollution gnomes will take care of the planet for us!" crowd?

Moderation:The Observatory guidelines prohibit the 'link-and-run' that you so succinctly demonstrated here. Next time you want to post something (nearly verbatim, mind you!) please add at least a modicum on analysis that will help people follow your line of thought. I am pretty sure I've mentioned this to you before, next time I will ask that an official warning be put in your file.

Instead of moderating for copy-pasta spam, is it possible we can just ban him for continuing to read the Daily Mail? I mean, their quality control isn't exactly the best. And in this case their basis for saying "no warming" seems to be that the Met Office put 2011 in at almost the same temperature as 1997, which is hardly rigorous; sounds like cherry-picking to me. If you move the date back a single year it makes a lot of difference. Then they bring in the old "SOLAR MINIMUM!" bullshit.

Instead of moderating for copy-pasta spam, is it possible we can just ban him for continuing to read the Daily Mail?

Heh. To be honest, when writing an "official moderation post," I prefer to keep it as clean cut to the point as I can. I am not always perfect with this, but I try.

That said, what is there to say about the utter drivel he posts? It is so laughably wrong that it doesn't even warrant honest consideration. Perhaps a link to realclimate or skepticalscience (?) where they have big lists of stupid arguments that have been debunked countless times. Past that, it is pretty much a known certainty that no matter what is posted here, he'll be back in a few months with the same drivel.

What could I add to the article but that these scientists don't know what's going on, have no way to explain the recent cooling spell, and if their models don't start matching observed data soon, they'll lose credibility and quite possibly their funding.

What could I add to the article but that these scientists don't know what's going on, have no way to explain the recent cooling spell, and if their models don't start matching observed data soon, they'll lose credibility and quite possibly their funding.

Is that enough, Zerotherm?

You could start with any of the following:

Explaining how short term variability constituents a trend

Explain which models, and what aspects "don't match"

Explain why if I pick any year other than 1997/1998 there is no "cooling trend"

How funding is tied to their results

Explain why the dates are cherry picked

Why you consider anything by David Rose credible

Why there is no correlation between sunspot number and observed temperature anomaly

Address any of the things Wheels of Confusion laid out

I am sure others can jump in and add to this. But that's a 10-second start for you.

I suppose those are resonable questions to ask after reading the article. So I'll try to elaborate a bit.

Explaining how short term variability constituents a trend- I don't think one can categorize 10+ years as a "short term trend" perhaps not long enough to be considered statistically signifigant but 1997-2012 is getting very close.

Explain which models, and what aspects "don't match"- The Met Office has made a number of decadal predictions which are not looking very good right now. Their global temp. predictions are at or just outside the 90% confidence intervals and a prediction that half of the years between 2009 and 2014 will be hotter than 1998 (per Met records) are two obvious candidates that I have seen mentioned.

Explain why if I pick any year other than 1997/1998 there is no "cooling trend"- Well pretty much any year after 1998 will also have a nearly flat tempurature trend as well, it is just that 1997 is the furthest back you can go. The argument isn't that there is no warming trend since 1950, it is that this trend has stopped. And as there is no warming over the last 10+ years that may be true (it might be false as well). Either way the next few years will provide some substantial evidence wrt. if the cooling has stopped or not.

How funding is tied to their results- If you aren't working on an important problem you aren't going to be funded as a researcher. So you had better always show that you are working on an important problem. One would hope that you do this by picking an important problem to begin with instead of sexing up the results at the end.

Why there is no correlation between sunspot number and observed temperature anomaly- It is an important question in understanding global tempurature, more funding is needed to study this problem . Ok, historical cold spells have been associated with low solar activity -- from all I have seen we do not understand (or have enough data) to determine if this is causal or merely a correlation.

Address any of the things Wheels of Confusion laid outWheels of Confusion ad-homed the source, ignored the difference between recent trend and overall trend, and then spammed a Real Climate link. I'll call him a warmista, say we have been warming since the little ice age, and link Judith Curry